Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 79 of 79
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I think you would expect that. Obviously there is order in the natural universe (without order the universe could not exist). So any self-awareness that exists within an ordered system should be able to recognize the order, which should result in thinking logically.
    There is no need to recognize order, and in fact it is apparent that most animals do not recognize much order. This means that it is in no way necessary for survival.

    An example. Ever notice how if you walk a dog on a leash they appear to be actively trying to trip you up with it? This was the subject of some study, and apparently (thanks to helpful and admittedly sometimes flawed documentaries.. but I offer it here as a loose example) Dogs have no sense of the idea that once you connect two objects, they will act as a single object. So while the universe does in fact act in that order, they do not have access to that tidbit.
    So to your point, they seem to make it just fine, though they are not "self aware".. so maybe that breaks with your example.

    The second point, is that false or wrong thinking that has the same result is equally as valid for survival. So no, it should not be expected given naturalism to arise as it exists today.


    -------------
    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    1. Logic and the laws of logic are not "accessed", nor are they transcendent. They are expressions of what we observe in reality.
    2. Thoughts and minds are emergent properties of physical brains.
    If logic is not transcendent, then it is just a convention we made up. Which means, that in some world.. you are wrong.
    So, you are wrong. Even if you are right.. you are still wrong in the same sense and in the same way. Because, logic is not transcendent.

    Further, I offered actual evidence of why the mind is not emergent, and examples against it. Further I offered why we would not expect an emergent mind to be a logical one from naturalism.

    So, your statements are not accepted and have been addressed. I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Furthermore, just because you have an explanation which is satisfactory for you, doesn't mean that it is the correct one.
    If you can eliminate all the alternatives.. then yes it does.
    Further, it is evidence in support of all the explanatory theories. That doesn't make any of them true, but it does make some more supported then those that don't explain it.
    Also, it isn't simply "satisfactory for me personally", it is sufficient of an explanation to explain the effect. Design explains what we see, naturalism does not.

    Not that you can't come up with some kind of exception so as to "explain it away" on naturalism, but given naturalism you would not naturally reach the results that we see.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    An explanation is built around things we already understand or for which we have valid explanations, so any explanation which incorporates something supernatural has no explanatory power whatso[ever. You saying it's design is no different from someone else saying that magic or "logic pixies" did it.
    Not at all. No less than recognizing a car has a designer is invalid.
    We reference and recognize design in our everyday lives, recognizing it for the universe does not suddenly make it invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, "access to logic" is evidence of "access to logic". Since you have not fully explained "access to logic" or supported it, your statement doesn't make much sense, and is entirely circular, no less.
    Well we were kinda necroing this thread, so I was just offering some context. If you have a direct question I will be glad to attempt an answer.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If logic is not transcendent, then it is just a convention we made up. Which means, that in some world.. you are wrong.
    Logic is an expression of how reality works. There may be places where our laws of logic are wrong, but until we find one, this is all we have to work with. I'm sorry, that's just the nature of the beast. You have not supported that logic is transcendent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further, I offered actual evidence of why the mind is not emergent, and examples against it.
    The brain stem college student? Unfortunately, there is no source information for this, and as such cannot be considered strong evidence for anything. What else did you provide which wasn't already responded to?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further I offered why we would not expect an emergent mind to be a logical one from naturalism.
    And your offering was rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you can eliminate all the alternatives.. then yes it does.
    And how did you determine which are "all the alternatives"? In any case, you have not eliminated the naturalistic alternative in any sense of the word. For if you had, you'd already have been nominated for a Nobel prize. As repeatedly stated in many such threads, the established and supported science is not something which can so easily be over-turned.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further, it is evidence in support of all the explanatory theories. That doesn't make any of them true, but it does make some more supported then those that don't explain it.
    Exactly, and invoking something supernatural is not an explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, it isn't simply "satisfactory for me personally", it is sufficient of an explanation to explain the effect.
    Again, sufficient of an explanation for you, because you've already accepted the assumptions required within that explanation, but for someone who does not grant those assumptions, your explanation fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Design explains what we see, naturalism does not.
    Again, design does not explain it in any way because it introduces a whole other can of worms which itself must be explained. You can't explain a mystery by appealing to another mystery.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not that you can't come up with some kind of exception so as to "explain it away" on naturalism, but given naturalism you would not naturally reach the results that we see.
    Again, you are misrepresenting naturalism. Sig has already explained for you how thinking is purely physical, to which you have not responded. You keep repeating that "on naturalism we wouldn't expect to have logical thinking". And yet we have logical thinking, and only demonstrations of natural effects by which to explain it. Have we explained it? Sort of, but most scientists will say that we're quite far away from fully understanding the brain and how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We reference and recognize design in our everyday lives, recognizing it for the universe does not suddenly make it invalid.
    You clearly don't understand how we recognize design. We don't just "recognize it in our everyday lives", we do so by comparing what is being considered with that which is naturally-occurring.
    If we're considering a car, which was designed, then it's a simple process to realize that there are countless examples of cars which were designed, but none which are naturally occurring.
    If we're considering a tree, which occurred naturally, then it's a simple process to realize that there are countless examples of trees which occurred naturally, and none which were designed.
    The same cannot be done with the universe, unfortunately, and what you're attempting to do is essentially a category mistake fallacy. We have no collection of universes which are naturally-occurring or designed against which to compare our universe to determine whether it is also naturally-occurring or designed.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Logic is an expression of how reality works. There may be places where our laws of logic are wrong, but until we find one, this is all we have to work with. I'm sorry, that's just the nature of the beast. You have not supported that logic is transcendent.
    That does not address what you quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, sufficient of an explanation for you, because you've already accepted the assumptions required within that explanation, but for someone who does not grant those assumptions, your explanation fails.
    Again, not really addressing the idea presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You clearly don't understand how we recognize design. We don't just "recognize it in our everyday lives", we do so by comparing what is being considered with that which is naturally-occurring.
    If we're considering a car, which was designed, then it's a simple process to realize that there are countless examples of cars which were designed, but none which are naturally occurring.
    If we're considering a tree, which occurred naturally, then it's a simple process to realize that there are countless examples of trees which occurred naturally, and none which were designed.
    The same cannot be done with the universe, unfortunately, and what you're attempting to do is essentially a category mistake fallacy. We have no collection of universes which are naturally-occurring or designed against which to compare our universe to determine whether it is also naturally-occurring or designed.
    Your opinion is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, you are misrepresenting naturalism. Sig has already explained for you how thinking is purely physical, to which you have not responded.
    I thought I had, or if I have not I hadn't intended to pick it up further.
    Either way it will stand as it is for this thread at this time.
    So thanks for noting your take on the state of the debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, design does not explain it in any way because it introduces a whole other can of worms which itself must be explained. You can't explain a mystery by appealing to another mystery.
    That isn't how explanations work.
    You don't need an explanation for the explanation in order for the first to be valid.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That does not address what you quoted.
    You said that logic is either transcendent or conventions we made up. It is neither. Support or retract that logic is transcendent.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, not really addressing the idea presented.
    The idea you presented was that your explanation is sufficient to explain the effect. It is not sufficient because it assumes the existence of things which themselves must be explained and supported. According to your standard for explanations, "Magic did it" is a sufficient explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your opinion is noted.
    This is not an opinion, it is actually how it works. Again, it's not that we just look at something and are magically able to say, "Hey, that looks like it was designed." Our brains compare it with what we've encountered before, things we know are naturally-occurring or designed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I thought I had, or if I have not I hadn't intended to pick it up further.
    You did state at the time that you intended to respond, but you never did.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Either way it will stand as it is for this thread at this time.
    Indeed, your OP is unsupported until you address the rebuttals.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So thanks for noting your take on the state of the debate.
    You're welcome!

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You don't need an explanation for the explanation in order for the first to be valid.
    Again, such a standard leads to "valid" explanations such as "Magic did it". Explanations are clarifications and simplifications of something which is not understood. Appealing to something not understood cannot serve as an explanation.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no need to recognize order, and in fact it is apparent that most animals do not recognize much order. This means that it is in no way necessary for survival.
    But it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen anyway and would not happen within a natural system.

    The theory of evolution does not say that living beings only have traits that are necessary for survival although it does say that traits that aid in survival will tend to be adopted in a species. Clearly, mankind's intelligence is a trait that helps us survive which why we have it, even if it's not necessary.

    So again, we would expect to see logical thought exist in a natural system if being developed the mental capacity to recognize order and there's no reason to think that recognizing reasons would not happen.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen anyway and would not happen within a natural system.

    The theory of evolution does not say that living beings only have traits that are necessary for survival although it does say that traits that aid in survival will tend to be adopted in a species. Clearly, mankind's intelligence is a trait that helps us survive which why we have it, even if it's not necessary.

    So again, we would expect to see logical thought exist in a natural system if being developed the mental capacity to recognize order and there's no reason to think that recognizing reasons would not happen.

    Indeed, why would we be surprised that a brain (that is developed enough to have conscious thought) could "access" correct ordered thinking (logic). It seems that it would increase your chances of getting dinner (or not being someone else's dinner). That is evolution. A trait that helps you survive is more likely to be passed on, in this case, being able to think in a correct ordered manner.

    Incorrect unordered thoughts (lack of logic) would hinder a long life, diminishing the chances of passing on those traits. How could it be, that incorrect thinking leads to a growing population?

  7. Likes mican333 liked this post
  8. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen anyway and would not happen within a natural system.
    That is more wishful thinking than an expected outcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The theory of evolution does not say that living beings only have traits that are necessary for survival although it does say that traits that aid in survival will tend to be adopted in a species.
    Evolution is not about declaring what traits a living being has.
    It is a theory regarding the mechanism that produces those traits.
    The "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" is actually the definition of traits that help you survive being selected.

    Is there some other force of selection that you are appealing to? Does evolution define some other selective force?

    It is flawed to assume that evolution as it stands can explain all traits (As that assumes what the theory should be proving).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So again, we would expect to see logical thought exist in a natural system if being developed the mental capacity to recognize order and there's no reason to think that recognizing reasons would not happen.
    You are confusing hope and wishful thinking for a theory making predictions.
    Mostly evolution is used as a magic word by naturalists to assume away features.

    I have outlined the disconnect. Evolution has no mechanism to distinguish faulty thinking from proper thinking where the action is the same. Without that, it is tantamount to appealing to the miracle of resurrection to suppose that proper thinking arose spontaneously and with no prior selective force to guide it. (here selective force as powerful or more so then survival of the fittest.)


    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You said that logic is either transcendent or conventions we made up. It is neither. Support or retract that logic is transcendent.
    I'm confused.. what is the other option?

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The idea you presented was that your explanation is sufficient to explain the effect. It is not sufficient because it assumes the existence of things which themselves must be explained and supported. According to your standard for explanations, "Magic did it" is a sufficient explanation.
    I'm not certain "magic" is defined in the sense you are using it. If you are using "magic" as "supernatural" or "not dependent on the laws of the universe" then.. your just changing the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    This is not an opinion, it is actually how it works. Again, it's not that we just look at something and are magically able to say, "Hey, that looks like it was designed." Our brains compare it with what we've encountered before, things we know are naturally-occurring or designed.
    So then, wouldn't any computer program which is said to have access to logic, be a valid basis for saying that our access is similarly designed? .. I mean according to the standard you are applying?

    Further I would say that while you are pointing to ONE way we recognize design, it is not the ONLY way we can recognize design. For example, we did not create the number for pie. But if we found that number repeating to the 50th digit in a signal from space.
    We would very reasonably conclude that it was the product of design. There is an entire science based on that exact assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You did state at the time that you intended to respond, but you never did.
    Well, I'll have to leave it there. Sorry, I simply lost track and now have lost the context of the thread. I wouldn't be doing it justice at this point and I appreciate your gentle reminder.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Indeed, your OP is unsupported until you address the rebuttals.
    Indeed it shall.
    I simply have lost the context to be able to address any objections or questions raised.


    ---To all---
    Sorry for dropping the thread. And my apologies to all that needed a response.
    Consider yourselves to have had the last word, and maybe take this up another day. It is a topic of great interest.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is more wishful thinking than an expected outcome.
    No, it's an expected outcome given that we have an ordered system and intelligence capable of knowing that it's ordered.

    If you are going to argue that either of these two things should not exist, you will need to support that.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Evolution is not about declaring what traits a living being has.
    It is a theory regarding the mechanism that produces those traits.
    And the mechanism is mutation. Fortunate mutations (as in those that help the species survive) are more likely to be passed on to future generations. So if self-awareness aids in a species survival, it can be expected that self-awareness will become a standard trait in a species once it starts appearing in people. And that has apparently been bourn out in the case of human beings. Our self-awareness has helped us survive as a species so our gaining self-awareness is the kind of thing that should happen according to evolution - it's a favorable mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is flawed to assume that evolution as it stands can explain all traits (As that assumes what the theory should be proving).
    Support or retract this statement.

    Give me an example of a trait that evolution cannot explain.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are confusing hope and wishful thinking for a theory making predictions.
    Mostly evolution is used as a magic word by naturalists to assume away features.
    Please support this statement.

    Give me an example of such a feature.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have outlined the disconnect. Evolution has no mechanism to distinguish faulty thinking from proper thinking where the action is the same. Without that, it is tantamount to appealing to the miracle of resurrection to suppose that proper thinking arose spontaneously and with no prior selective force to guide it. (here selective force as powerful or more so then survival of the fittest.)
    But survival of the fittest is the cause of proper thinking.

    If we had two groups of people and in relation to something like running off of a cliff, one group engaged in proper thinking (don't run off a cliff) and another engaged in faulty thinking (go ahead and run off a cliff), it's pretty clear that the group with the proper thinking will be more likely to live to pass on their mode of thinking to future generations and therefore people will routinely have proper thinking in that regards.

    If it's a situation where proper and faulty thinking have no relevant effect to one's survival, then it's a wash but that doesn't change the fact that those who think properly are, on average, more likely to survive than those who use faulty thinking.

  10. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, it's an expected outcome given that we have an ordered system and intelligence capable of knowing that it's ordered.

    If you are going to argue that either of these two things should not exist, you will need to support that.
    I see, your working backwards and using adhoc reasoning to use evolution as a solution.
    I was saying if you start from scratch and apply evolution, you would not expect to see intelligence with access to logic arise. I named the road block, limitations and problems that would cause that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And the mechanism is mutation. Fortunate mutations (as in those that help the species survive) are more likely to be passed on to future generations. So if self-awareness aids in a species survival, it can be expected that self-awareness will become a standard trait in a species once it starts appearing in people. And that has apparently been bourn out in the case of human beings. Our self-awareness has helped us survive as a species so our gaining self-awareness is the kind of thing that should happen according to evolution - it's a favorable mutation.
    No mutation does not dictate what is passed on, and what is selected. That is a categorical error.
    Further you have shifted I think from "access to logic" to "self awareness" I don't accept that switch.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Support or retract this statement.

    Give me an example of a trait that evolution cannot explain.
    Any trait that requires many complex changes to occur in a population with limited growth.
    For example, Elephants represent a huge problem for evolution. There simply isn't enough time to evolve an elephant because their birth rate is too slow.
    Evolution requires millions of generations for even simple changes. Long gestation species simply do not posses the required generations in all of possible history.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we had two groups of people and in relation to something like running off of a cliff, one group engaged in proper thinking (don't run off a cliff) and another engaged in faulty thinking (go ahead and run off a cliff), it's pretty clear that the group with the proper thinking will be more likely to live to pass on their mode of thinking to future generations and therefore people will routinely have proper thinking in that regards.
    You are over simplifying and as long as you do you will never really grasp the objection to this.
    So I will lay it out one more time.
    Your right natural selection selects the species that DOESN'T run off the cliff.
    However there is only one single possible "correct" thinking line that will produce that effect. Namely, don't do it because it will cause harm

    However the thinking, I want to do it and the best way to accomplish it is to run in the opposite direction.
    would also be equally selected. as well as millions of other incorrect thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If it's a situation where proper and faulty thinking have no relevant effect to one's survival, then it's a wash but that doesn't change the fact that those who think properly are, on average, more likely to survive than those who use faulty thinking.
    That is FALSE and demonstrated above. There are many more false thinking that would more probably arise in a random system. Many more false thinking that would "on overage" produce actual survival.
    So the idea that a correct idea would evolve is wishful thinking
    and the idea that it would be selected over all other false thinking is false, as demonstrated.
    Ultimately evolution simply doesn't care about the thoughts and why you act in a way to survive. Thus as a mechanism it simply has no explanatory power over this phenomena we see.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I see, your working backwards and using adhoc reasoning to use evolution as a solution.
    I was saying if you start from scratch and apply evolution, you would not expect to see intelligence with access to logic arise. I named the road block, limitations and problems that would cause that.
    And I have supported below that you would expect to see intelligence with access to logic arise since they increase the chances of survival.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No mutation does not dictate what is passed on, and what is selected.
    I didn't say it did. Natural selection dictates which mutations are passed on (the musttions that help a creature survive are more likely to be passed on)..

    You seem to be arguing against evolution without understanding the theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further you have shifted I think from "access to logic" to "self awareness" I don't accept that switch.
    I established that self-awareness is a necessary component for logic so I'm basically arguing for the same thing. This objection is pretty irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Any trait that requires many complex changes to occur in a population with limited growth.
    For example, Elephants represent a huge problem for evolution. There simply isn't enough time to evolve an elephant because their birth rate is too slow.
    Evolution requires millions of generations for even simple changes. Long gestation species simply do not posses the required generations in all of possible history.
    You will need to support this. And please don't use creationist sites for support. Use unbiased scientific sites only.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are over simplifying and as long as you do you will never really grasp the objection to this.
    So I will lay it out one more time.
    Your right natural selection selects the species that DOESN'T run off the cliff.
    However there is only one single possible "correct" thinking line that will produce that effect. Namely, don't do it because it will cause harm

    However the thinking, I want to do it and the best way to accomplish it is to run in the opposite direction.
    would also be equally selected. as well as millions of other incorrect thinking.
    And they would all, on average, decrease the chances of survival. Let's say there's a nice food source near the cliff. The person who holds the incorrect thought "run away from the cliff" will not have access to the food and therefore is more likely to starve than the person who thinks "Don't jump off the cliff" but doesn't feel that he has to run away from the cliff edge.

    And yes, there are incorrect thoughts that probably will have no negative effect on survival but overall correct thinking helps one survive better than incorrect thinking. So in natural selection, correct thinking will win out over incorrect thinking.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is FALSE and demonstrated above. There are many more false thinking that would more probably arise in a random system. Many more false thinking that would "on overage" produce actual survival.
    So the idea that a correct idea would evolve is wishful thinking
    and the idea that it would be selected over all other false thinking is false, as demonstrated.
    Ultimately evolution simply doesn't care about the thoughts and why you act in a way to survive. Thus as a mechanism it simply has no explanatory power over this phenomena we see.
    Well, let's just say that for those who recognize that one is more likely to survive if they engage in correct thinking than incorrect thinking, your statement is wrong.

    But seriously, do you actually want to debate whether one is more likely to survive if they engage in correct thinking than incorrect thinking? Shall we debate whether one is more likely to survive if they engage in correct thinking on how to hunt, climb, drive, fight, etc than if they think incorrectly on those issue? I think you should concede this point.

    If not, then let's focus just on this point and ignore the rest until it is settled whether correct thinking helps one survive.

  12. #71
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If not, then let's focus just on this point and ignore the rest until it is settled whether correct thinking helps one survive.
    Putting this at the top, you can read the rest of my response if you like, but I'm fine with this.
    Great idea.

    Is there any specific question you have regarding my point on this? I'll offer my first point.

    #1 - Evolution is not concerned about the reason for an action, it deals with the outward action only. The mind is basically a black box to the evolutionary process.


    -----

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I have supported below that you would expect to see intelligence with access to logic arise since they increase the chances of survival.
    Not support like you are asking me to support my points. That is for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You seem to be arguing against evolution without understanding the theory.
    More like I mistook your repeating the assertion of your point, as support.
    My bad. Your going to have to support what you are asserting.
    Namely that " Our self-awareness has helped us survive as a species "

    Your simply question begging here. Assuming your position in it's assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I established that self-awareness is a necessary component for logic so I'm basically arguing for the same thing. This objection is pretty irrelevant.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You will need to support this. And please don't use creationist sites for support. Use unbiased scientific sites only.
    Which component is in question?
    1) Evolution requires millions of generations for large changes
    2) Elephants have a long gestation period
    3) #2 Limits the total # of possible generations for such species.
    4) 1-3 makes evolution insufficient to produce elephants.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And they would all, on average, decrease the chances of survival
    First of all this is a bare assertion with no reason to accept.
    Second, it isn't simply that things increase or decrease chances of survival AT ALL. It must be at a sufficient rate so as to produce the world we see.
    Such that an animal running faster helps it survive sure. But.. it has to run significantly faster, for it to have an actual effect on the gene pool.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And yes, there are incorrect thoughts that probably will have no negative effect on survival but overall correct thinking helps one survive better than incorrect thinking. So in natural selection, correct thinking will win out over incorrect thinking.
    Shall I challenge you as you have me? To support this with some situation?
    Basically your offering a bare assertion again. Once you admit that incorrect thinking will not negatively effect survival you have coincided that correct thinking isn't going to improve the actual chances.
    There must be some detriment in order for the proper thinking to be selected.


    And rewind the clock man then run it forward. Those models will not weed out incorrect thinking that produces survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, let's just say that for those who recognize that one is more likely to survive if they engage in correct thinking than incorrect thinking, your statement is wrong.

    But seriously, do you actually want to debate whether one is more likely to survive if they engage in correct thinking than incorrect thinking? Shall we debate whether one is more likely to survive if they engage in correct thinking on how to hunt, climb, drive, fight, etc than if they think incorrectly on those issue? I think you should concede this point.
    It simply isn't true so there is nothing to "recognize".
    For any one correct thought you can offer with a desired outcome endless incorrect thoughts can be offered that produce the same exact outcome.

    You will then no doubt adhoc some other aspect to try and weed those out, but each layer suffers the same problem.
    For a model that supposes the happenstance occurrence of a single correct thought through evolutionary programming. You don't seem willing to consider the effects and far more likely and abundant occurrence of incorrect thoughts which would produce the same desired result.
    I would say I am confused but it is clear by your repeated testament of faith that you strongly hope that evolution would weed this stuff out.
    There stands the fact that there is no reason to think this would actually be the case given naturalism and the mechanisms of evolution.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm confused.. what is the other option?
    Logic is an expression of how reality has been observed to function.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not certain "magic" is defined in the sense you are using it. If you are using "magic" as "supernatural" or "not dependent on the laws of the universe" then.. your just changing the word.
    That's not a problem for the explanation, since saying "Magic did it" sufficiently explains it. That, or "Universe-farting pixies did it", which is also sufficient according to your standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So then, wouldn't any computer program which is said to have access to logic, be a valid basis for saying that our access is similarly designed? .. I mean according to the standard you are applying?
    Again, this "access to logic" is a non-starter. The standard I'm applying does not require we assume there is anything like what you're calling "access to logic", which hasn't been clearly explained nor supported (see post #40) As Sig explained, like humans, computers aren't designed to have "access to logic". Like humans, computers are programmed (humans are taught) to understand logic (the expressions of how we've observed reality works), and they then use that to perform logical processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further I would say that while you are pointing to ONE way we recognize design, it is not the ONLY way we can recognize design. For example, we did not create the number for pie. But if we found that number repeating to the 50th digit in a signal from space. We would very reasonably conclude that it was the product of design.
    This is just another example of recognising design, and not another example of a way we recognise design. So your claim that there are different ways we recognise design is unsupported.
    Furthermore, in your example we would again be comparing the information received in the signal with information from known natural and artificial signals to determine whether it comports with that which is known to be natural or artificial. Again, this process of comparison cannot be done with the universe.
    Bottom line: We have no inherent ability to recognise design, we do so by referring to and comparing and contrasting with all the other examples of what we've already experienced and identified as natural or artificial.

  14. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    I would say I am confused but it is clear by your repeated testament of faith that you strongly hope that evolution would weed this stuff out.
    There stands the fact that there is no reason to think this would actually be the case given naturalism and the mechanisms of evolution.[/QUOTE]


    But in your world view, god gave us the ability for "correct ordered thought" and we still have incorrect thoughts, so they are still not "weeded out". Why does that matter with naturalism and not god?

  15. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Putting this at the top, you can read the rest of my response if you like, but I'm fine with this.
    Great idea.

    Is there any specific question you have regarding my point on this? I'll offer my first point.

    #1 - Evolution is not concerned about the reason for an action, it deals with the outward action only. The mind is basically a black box to the evolutionary process.
    I don't know what you mean by "black box" so the question I have is what do you mean? And the point I'm talking about is below:




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First of all this is a bare assertion with no reason to accept.
    Second, it isn't simply that things increase or decrease chances of survival AT ALL. It must be at a sufficient rate so as to produce the world we see.
    Such that an animal running faster helps it survive sure. But.. it has to run significantly faster, for it to have an actual effect on the gene pool.
    Any amount can be significant. If an antelope runs faster than the next one, then it is more likely to escape (because the slower got eaten instead) so as long as it runs faster at all, it helps it survive.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It simply isn't true so there is nothing to "recognize".
    For any one correct thought you can offer with a desired outcome endless incorrect thoughts can be offered that produce the same exact outcome.
    But it won't produce the exact same result. A person who thinks that they should not run of the cliff and the person who thinks that they should run away from the cliff will not do the exact same thing for one of them may approach the cliff (without falling off) and the other will always stay away. And if there's a food source near the cliff, the one who doesn't run away will have access to that food and will be more likely to survive. So the one with the correct though is more likely to survive.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will then no doubt adhoc some other aspect to try and weed those out, but each layer suffers the same problem.
    For a model that supposes the happenstance occurrence of a single correct thought through evolutionary programming. You don't seem willing to consider the effects and far more likely and abundant occurrence of incorrect thoughts which would produce the same desired result.
    I have considered it and then rejected it for it is incorrect. And I have supported that it's incorrect with my above example. A person who through happenstance, has an incorrect thought that keeps him from falling off the cliff will make a different error (staying away from a potential food source) that will hamper his survival.

    Your assertion that a series of incorrect thoughts is just as likely to result in survival as a series of correct thoughts is without support. I have supported my position on this and you are baselessly stating yours. You will need to support your assertion before it can be accepted.

    Let me put it this way. Is correct thinking and faulty thinking in regards to school work just as likely to result in a good grade? Of course not. How about automobile repair? Nope. Or playing a sport? Nope. How about trying to survive? The answer is clear. Being GOOD at trying to survive increases the odds of surviving and therefore having correct thinking when it comes to decisions increases the chances of survival. Clearly obvious.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Which component is in question?
    1) Evolution requires millions of generations for large changes
    2) Elephants have a long gestation period
    3) #2 Limits the total # of possible generations for such species.
    4) 1-3 makes evolution insufficient to produce elephants.
    1 and 2 are very imprecise so that's a problem. But I'll ask that you support 4. And again, use a valid scientific source for your support (assuming you are using outside information).

  16. #75
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't know what you mean by "black box" so the question I have is what do you mean? And the point I'm talking about is below:
    By black box, I mean that the internal mechanisms (here referring to the concept reasoning) are not taken into account.

    For example, my computer is a black box to me. I don't know how it works. I simply know that pressing the "S" key will display the S.
    The internal workings are not a concern to what I type here.

    Same with evolution thoughts and actions. Evolution doesn't care if the rabbit runs from the fox for right or wrong reasons, it only cares that it survives and prospers.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Any amount can be significant. If an antelope runs faster than the next one, then it is more likely to escape (because the slower got eaten instead) so as long as it runs faster at all, it helps it survive.
    I think there is an actual number put on it.. but I can't find it.
    As to your example, I think it is flawed in that there is no "faster" of working answers.
    Ie there is no "He didn't jump off the cliff .. faster".
    Here the end result is the same, only the reason is different.
    If you claim there is a significant increase in survivability, it is your burden to show that and maybe even quantify it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it won't produce the exact same result. A person who thinks that they should not run of the cliff and the person who thinks that they should run away from the cliff will not do the exact same thing for one of them may approach the cliff (without falling off) and the other will always stay away. And if there's a food source near the cliff, the one who doesn't run away will have access to that food and will be more likely to survive. So the one with the correct though is more likely to survive.
    Until you added adhoc reasons for one to fail.. Yea they are the same results.
    IF there is a food source, then it just needs to think that eating the food will produce death, and is thus desirable. Or that it isn't hungry so it should eat.
    Or that the best way to jump off the cliff is to eat the food.

    Bottom line my point is sustained. The end result will be the same in more cases of incorrect thinking than correct ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Let me put it this way. Is correct thinking and faulty thinking in regards to school work just as likely to result in a good grade? Of course not. How about automobile repair? Nope. Or playing a sport? Nope. How about trying to survive? The answer is clear. Being GOOD at trying to survive increases the odds of surviving and therefore having correct thinking when it comes to decisions increases the chances of survival. Clearly obvious.
    Good grades is a circular reasoning example. Grades are based on measuring correct thinking. There is no equivalent force for measuring correct thinking in evolution (when outcomes are the same).

    It is a lot easier for basic motivating factors to be faulty reasoned, then for one to reach an accurate portrait of hamlet on flawed thinking.
    I think you are taking higher order things and applying them incorrectly to lower order things.

    Cows can live quite a long time with the idea that eating grass is the best way to die of starvation. Certainly you see the order of simplicity vs car engine?


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    1 and 2 are very imprecise so that's a problem. But I'll ask that you support 4. And again, use a valid scientific source for your support (assuming you are using outside information).
    I'm sorry that is not how logic works.
    I have 1-3 and 4 is derived from it.
    You can't accept 1-3 and then ask for support for 4. That is ridiculous hand waving.

    So #4 is supported until you challenge 1-3.. not demand some arbitrary other kind of evidence you would like better.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #76
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Same with evolution thoughts and actions. Evolution doesn't care if the rabbit runs from the fox for right or wrong reasons, it only cares that it survives and prospers.
    And in terms of escaping the rabbit, evolution "cares" how fast the rabbit runs for that effects its chances of survival. And to the extent that having a good mind helps one survive, evolution "cares" if one has a good mind.

    I put "care" in quotations because evolution doesn't actually care but I don't want to avoid your point over word usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think there is an actual number put on it.. but I can't find it.
    As to your example, I think it is flawed in that there is no "faster" of working answers.
    Ie there is no "He didn't jump off the cliff .. faster".
    Here the end result is the same, only the reason is different.
    If you claim there is a significant increase in survivability, it is your burden to show that and maybe even quantify it.
    My example are antelopes running away from a lion. If there are two antelopes, the one that runs the fastest is the one that the lion won't catch (because it will catch the slower antelope instead) and therefore the one that survives the chase. It doesn't matter how much faster the quicker one runs so there is no need to quantify its speed. For the survivor "faster than the others" is all that counts and "how much faster than the others" is not relevant to whether it survives or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Until you added adhoc reasons for one to fail.. Yea they are the same results.
    IF there is a food source, then it just needs to think that eating the food will produce death, and is thus desirable. Or that it isn't hungry so it should eat.
    Or that the best way to jump off the cliff is to eat the food.
    And what if that person doesn't have those other wrong thoughts? Then he does not have access to the food and therefore is less likely to survive than the person who knows enough to look for the berries near the cliff but not fall off of it.

    You have to invent a series of wrong thoughts that combine in an advantageous fashion in order to get the same results and it will take quite a bit of random luck for a person to have the right combination to get the same results as the person with right thoughts. So at best you can say that it's possible that a person with wrong thoughts might take the right actions anyway. But you can't say that it's just as likely that he will for his wrong thoughts probably will not combine so fortuitously. So short of some incredible coincidence where his wrong thoughts happen to combine perfectly, he's not going to do as well. You are basically appealing to blind luck for the wrong thought person to do as well.

    And besides that, you are ignoring the origin of thoughts. They are basically a more advanced version of instincts. Let's go way back in evolution to the most simple life forms. They had nothing that could be considered thoughts and are just as likely to take deadly action as helpful action. So we have two lifeforms that need to eat to survive. One randomly, without thought, consumes some nutrients and lives. The other one doesn't consume and dies. So the one that eats propagates and its offspring are more likely to be eaters as well compared to the one who didn't eat. So animals develop an instinct to eat things that satisfy their hunger by instinct. And then mankind has the same instinct but put thoughts around it and figures out how to attain food. So mankind is developed to have the correct thought that one should eat and the incorrect thought that man should not eat is very unlikely to arise (if it does, it will be a negative mutation that will be weeded out pretty quickly). So there is a direct correlation between correct thoughts on survival and surviving and it goes both ways. Correct thoughts on survival lead to survival. The need to survive creates correct thoughts on survival.

    So it's not only an issue that those who have correct thoughts will survive. It's also an issue that survival generates being who are more likely to have correct thoughts. So your hypothetical person with incorrect thoughts is unlikely to exist in any significant numbers not only because his wrong thoughts will lead to a shorter life but because evolution is much less likely to produce such a person compared to people who have correct thoughts.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good grades is a circular reasoning example. Grades are based on measuring correct thinking.
    Point taken. But then that does not apply to fixing a car engine or trying to survive so you have not rebutted my argument in general.

    If one applies correct thinking when attempting to survive, they are more likely to survive.

    For example, building a fire is often very beneficial for survival and one who uses correct thinking in building a fire is more likely to successfully build a fire and therefore survive than someone who uses incorrect thinking in attempting to build a fire. That is just one example that SUPPORTS my position that using correct thinking is more beneficial for survival than using incorrect thinking. And there is no outside measurement of correct thinking in this case - either a fire is built or it is not.

    So my point about correct thinking increasing the odds of survival is supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no equivalent force for measuring correct thinking in evolution (when outcomes are the same).
    Yes there is. Evolution holds that the creatures that have the correct habits are more likely to survive. So likewise the thought processes that endure over time are the correct ones. You may not agree but evolution itself does hold that certain types of thinking is "correct".


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is a lot easier for basic motivating factors to be faulty reasoned, then for one to reach an accurate portrait of hamlet on flawed thinking.
    I think you are taking higher order things and applying them incorrectly to lower order things.
    If we are discussing reasoning then we are discussing higher order thinking.

    Animals act on instinct, not reasoning.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm sorry that is not how logic works.
    I have 1-3 and 4 is derived from it.
    You can't accept 1-3 and then ask for support for 4.
    I can if I think points 1-3 do not lead to point 4's conclusion. And they do not.

    So support or retract that points 1-3 necessarily lead to point 4.

    Let me make my rejection a bit clearer. You have attempted to establish that not enough generations have passed to create elephants. Point 1 establishes that millions of generations is needed for "large change" (although you have not defined "large change"). Point 2 establishes that elephants have a long gestation period which means that, compared to other animals, they are slower to create new generations. Point 4 uses these two to say that not enough generations of photo-elephants have occurred to create actual elephants. But for point 4 to be supported you need to show that not just a limited number of generations have occurred to TOO FEW generations have occurred which of course means that there is a certain number of generations that need to occur to make elephants and actual number is too low. So basically you will need to provide two numbers, such as saying that ten million generations are needed to make elephants but only 5 million generations have occurred. And while I don't require exact numbers you do need to provide something to show that the required number is higher than the actual number. Just using vague terms like "large change" and "long gestation" does not provide any real data to support point 4.

    In fact, given that life has evolved for billions of years, it's pretty obvious that ALL lifeforms have had billions of generations to develop into whatever they are. To say that elephants have not have enough to time to be what they are sound very counter-intuitive to me. We need millions of generations and have a relatively long gestation period. I see absolutely no reason why those mean that elephants can't exist. So point 4 is absolutely not supported by the prior points.

    So again, support or retract that points 1-3 support point 4.
    Last edited by mican333; January 7th, 2017 at 08:24 AM.

  18. #77
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And in terms of escaping the rabbit, evolution "cares" how fast the rabbit runs for that effects its chances of survival. And to the extent that having a good mind helps one survive, evolution cares if one has a good mind.
    Your missing the point. As long as the result equates to survival, evolution will not distinquish between good and bad thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My example are antelopes running away from a lion. If there are two antelopes, the one that runs the fastest is the one that the lion won't catch (because it will catch the slower antelope instead) and therefore the one that survives the chase. It doesn't matter how much faster the quicker one runs so there is no need to quantify its speed.
    I'm really not interested in arguing this point. Because in the end the lions hunt the sick, the old and the lame.
    However it doesn't matter to our disussion. We are granting "surival of the fittest".

    My point is that there is some number out there expressing the survival rate that is needed to effect the gene pool.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Your point is incoherent to me so you will need to explain it better before it is sustained.
    Ask a question so that I may answer it and clarify. I don't want to guess at your confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If one applies correct thinking when attempting to survive, they are more likely to survive.
    Lets consider your evidence...

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    For example, building a fire is often very beneficial for survival and one who uses correct thinking in building a fire is more likely to successfully build a fire and therefore survive than someone who uses incorrect thinking in attempting to build a fire.
    First of all, your begging the question. Your not explaining how correct thinking would arrise, your saying how helpful it is once it is fully formed.

    Second, Your ignoring that first low order correct thinking must be established before any higher order. So that objection is not addressed by you.
    Certainly you recognize the difference in order of running away from a cliff is compared to constructing an automobile?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yes there is. Evolution holds that the creatures that have the correct habits are more likely to survive. So likewise the thought processes that endure over time are the correct ones. You may not agree but evolution itself does hold that certain types of thinking is "correct".
    This is where you are out right ignoring my point, probably becaue you fail to understand it. So again .. ask a question.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If we are discussing reasoning then we are discussing higher order thinking.

    Animals act on instinct, not reasoning.
    Are you supposing that evolutionis o.k with the entire line of animals using incorrec thinking, then suddenly correct thinking arises in the only sentiant beings?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I disagree. I don't think point 4 logically follows point 1-3. But if you want me to start at point 1, that's fine.

    So support or retract that Evolution requires millions of generations for large changes. And please define what qualifies as a "large change" and provide scientific evidence of how many generations it takes for such a thing to happen. Like I said, I found your first two points very imprecise so if you are going to make a scientific argument, you will need to provide some precision.
    As soon as you equally support that evolution cares about the thoughts of creaturs with an equally valid scientific paper.

    I really don't feel like playing this game where you challenge everything I say for this level of support, while not supporting your own claims in like fashion.

    You show yourself willing, and I will do the same.

    ---------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------

    ----edit note ---
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_coefficient

    This is the concept I was thinking of in relation to "fitness", and that not just any increase is good enough.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your missing the point. As long as the result equates to survival, evolution will not distinquish between good and bad thoughts.
    I agree. But then that only applies to thoughts that are irrelevant to survival. If the thought is relevant to the issue of survival (such as running off a cliff), then thoughts regarding this issue can be considered good and bad and their desirability is directly related to how correct they are.

    You can dream up extenuating circumstances where a person who has an incorrect thought about cliffs will do just as well (and occasionally it may even happen) but on average, the person with the correct thought will do better than the person with the incorrect thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm really not interested in arguing this point. Because in the end the lions hunt the sick, the old and the lame.
    However it doesn't matter to our disussion. We are granting "surival of the fittest".

    My point is that there is some number out there expressing the survival rate that is needed to effect the gene pool.
    If you think so, you think so. But my argument does not rely on such a number so if it's important to your argument, then you need to find it. If you are telling me that I need it, then support that I do.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Ask a question so that I may answer it and clarify. I don't want to guess at your confusion.
    I think I got a handle on your argument and made a new response in my last post (and then saw that you made this point) so I will paste my new response here.

    And what if that person doesn't have those other wrong thoughts? Then he does not have access to the food and therefore is less likely to survive than the person who knows enough to look for the berries near the cliff but not fall off of it.

    You have to invent a series of specific and hypothetical wrong thoughts that combine in an advantageous fashion in order to get the same results as having correct thoughts and it will take quite a bit of random luck for a person to have the right combination to get the same results as the person with right thoughts. So at best you can say that it's possible that a specific person with wrong thoughts might take the right actions anyway (and even then it's probably only in that one situation). But you can't say that it's just as likely that he will survive for his wrong thoughts probably will not combine so fortuitously. So short of some incredible coincidence where his wrong thoughts happen to combine perfectly (and does it again and again for the rest of his life), he's not going to do as well. You are basically appealing to blind luck for the wrong thought person to do as well. I think correct thinking is a much better survival mechanism and wrong thinking combined with blind luck.

    And besides that, you are ignoring the origin of thoughts. They are basically a more advanced version of instincts. Let's go way back in evolution to the most simple life forms. They had nothing that could be considered thoughts and are just as likely to take deadly action as helpful action. So we have two lifeforms that need to eat to survive. One randomly, without thought, consumes some nutrients and lives. The other one doesn't consume and dies. So the one that eats propagates and its offspring are more likely to be eaters as well compared to the one who didn't eat. So animals develop an instinct to eat things that satisfy their hunger by instinct. And then mankind has the same instinct but put thoughts around it and figures out how to attain food. So mankind is developed to have the correct thought that one should eat and the incorrect thought that man should not eat is very unlikely to arise (if it does, it will be a negative mutation that will be weeded out pretty quickly). So there is a direct correlation between correct thoughts on survival and surviving and it goes both ways. Correct thoughts on survival lead to survival. The need to survive creates correct thoughts on survival.

    So it's not only an issue that those who have correct thoughts will survive. It's also an issue that survival generates being who are more likely to have correct thoughts. So your hypothetical person with incorrect thoughts is unlikely to exist in any significant numbers not only because his wrong thoughts will lead to a shorter life but because evolution is much less likely to produce such a person compared to people who have correct thoughts.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First of all, your begging the question. Your not explaining how correct thinking would arise, your saying how helpful it is once it is fully formed.
    Which has no bearing on the correctness of my argument. But fortunately I responded to this issue in my point above. So read above for the origin of thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, Your ignoring that first low order correct thinking must be established before any higher order. So that objection is not addressed by you.
    Certainly you recognize the difference in order of running away from a cliff is compared to constructing an automobile?
    Again, addressed above. Also, none of your objections say that my point is wrong so I consider it unchallenged and it stands as correct until it is challenged so I will repeat it:

    building a fire is often very beneficial for survival and one who uses correct thinking in building a fire is more likely to successfully build a fire and therefore survive than someone who uses incorrect thinking in attempting to build a fire.

    So I have supported that correct thinking is more likely to lead to survival than incorrect thinking.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is where you are out right ignoring my point, probably becaue you fail to understand it. So again .. ask a question.
    That's another part of the post that I redid and then saw that you made a new post while I was editing. So I concede your point regarding the school analogy.

    The rest of it is covered by the fire statement above so I won't repost it here (but feel free to look at it in the above post if you want).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Are you supposing that evolutionis o.k with the entire line of animals using incorrec thinking, then suddenly correct thinking arises in the only sentiant beings?
    I also covered this in the re-post in this thread (four points above). To re-state briefly. Animals don't think but have instincts and the ones with correct instincts are more likely to survive. And the correct instincts in pre-humans lead to correct thinking in humans.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As soon as you equally support that evolution cares about the thoughts of creaturs with an equally valid scientific paper.

    I really don't feel like playing this game where you challenge everything I say for this level of support, while not supporting your own claims in like fashion.

    You show yourself willing, and I will do the same.
    But I don't care if you support your claim. If you don't support it, then it's retracted and that's fine with me.

    And I should point out that this my FIRST AND ONLY support or retract challenge in this debate so I've not asked you to support anything other argument of yours at this level.

    And if you want me to support or retract that evolution cares about the thoughts of creatures, I will point out that I never said that it does care so you may consider that point retracted. In fact, evolution doesn't "care" as far as I understand what the word "care" means nor did I forward that it does care (although I think I used the word in response to your argument since you used the word and then put it in quotes because I don't think the word "care" is quite right but I didn't want to stall the argument over semantic issues). Now I understand that I might have said something similar in other words and if you want me to support that statement, you will need to find it and challenge me to support what I actually said in my own words.

    And I don't feel that I have refused to support any of my arguments and reject the notion that I am inadequately doing so (although miscommunications and errors may have lead to certain inadequate responses or non-responses).

    And if you actually have a complaint regarding me or my debating, please PM me regarding it. I do not want any personal complaints in a thread. From past experience, they harm the debate.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_coefficient

    This is the concept I was thinking of in relation to "fitness", and that not just any increase is good enough.
    I clicked the link and the article is very technical so I don't understand it well enough to know whether it supports your argument. So at this point I do not accept your argument on this level. If you want to try to support your argument, you will need to clearly explain, in layman's terms, why your argument is correct.
    Last edited by mican333; January 8th, 2017 at 10:37 AM.

  20. #79
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by:The Technological Singularity

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That does not address what you quoted.


    Again, not really addressing the idea presented.


    Your opinion is noted.


    I thought I had, or if I have not I hadn't intended to pick it up further.
    Either way it will stand as it is for this thread at this time.
    So thanks for noting your take on the state of the debate.



    That isn't how explanations work.
    You don't need an explanation for the explanation in order for the first to be valid.

    I would really like to see support for this. If the "explanation" just needs to solve the current problem, but has no need to obey known physics (for instance) what good does the "explanation" do?
    We can explain the dark matter/energy problem by saying god (or whoever) didn't have enough time (or the inclination) to make enough actual matter, so he just changed physical laws to account for the expansion of the universe. The rest of the time "the law is the law". Problem solved.....

    My preference would be, that "explanations" easily pass a plausibility test, ie: it would be nice to stay within known physical law.

    If energy can not be created nor destroyed, how is it God affects anything in this universe? He just suspends the laws he made each instance he feels like a making a miracle??? Why did he make it a law if he just willie nillie changes things on the fly and have to account for each change forever...... (so as not to affect the whole universe, as a change in energy anywhere, would affect the universe everywhere).

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •